Eliminating Killing Attacks

[Gary]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

The problem with a flat 3 stun multiple is that it fixes the range problem but not the average problem.

 

If you take a 1d6KA vs 3d6 EB striking a 6 def 8 con normal, the KA comes out on top.

 

It averages more stun through defenses 5 to 4.523. It also stuns the target more often, 1 shot in 3 compared to roughly 1 in 11 for the EB.

 

The only way in which the EB is superior is if the normal has 1 stun (The KA has a 1 in 3 chance of doing no damage and the EB has a 1 in 11 chance of the same) of you have some pressing need to inflict at least 1 stun to the target.

 

That and a marginally better chance of causing knockback.

 

 

Math Geek Alert!

 

1d6 RKA does 4.50 stun through 6 defenses on average, and has a 25.0% chance of Stunning the target.

 

3d6 EB does 4.57 stun through 6 defenses on average, and has a 9.26% chance of Stunning the target.

 

And the chance of doing no damage with the 1d6 RKA vs 6 defenses is actually 52.8%.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Very well done' date=' Hugh, without offense to bblackmoor's rebuttals, I think that's an excellent summation and set of notions[/quote']

 

Oh, I agree. I'll have to wait a while before I'll be able to give Hugh any rep on it (too much in the last 24 hours, alas), but it's on my list of things to do.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Allow me to say that I am impressed at your effort. I think it will be wasted' date=' though. There appear to be only a handful of people who even see the problems with Killing Attacks.[/quote']

 

Maybe you give me to much credit. I see an issue. I don't know that I classify it as a problem (ie something that needs to be solved). That's likely because my group tends not to buy/use killing attacks.

 

The variance is less than 10%. The average of the two mechanics is virtually identical. In fact' date=' it is as close to identical as it [i']can[/i] be given the variables involved.

 

The variance is 1 BOD average per 30 AP. That's 16.67% (7/6). It holds true as long as even dice of KA are purchased, although not if partial dice are purchased.

 

No. A "killing damage" attack rolled as (xd6) is of the same lethality as an attack rolled using (xd6 * (1d6 - y)). Targets without resistant defenses die.

 

Lethality to whom? To normals? To supers without resistant defenses (who? where?) To comparable supers?

 

To norms, it makes little difference. At 60 AP, a norm hit by any attack will be at negative BOD (-2 for an EB, -4 for a "normal dice" KA and -6 for an "old school" KA). The old school KA is the most likely to get an instant kill by doing an extra 2 BOD (because it's more variable and starts higher).

 

If we move to 75 AP, we get -5 from an EB, -7 from a "normal dice" KA and -9.5 from an "old school" KA - dead on average from the last one, but in big trouble from any.

 

Sorry' date=' that was a typo. The Consistent Killing Damage rule is that killing attacks are rolled the same way normal attacks are rolled: (xd6) where x is the number of Damage Classes, with Stun and Body counted in the same way.[/quote']

 

NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! That's what made it elegant - it averaged the same BOD as an "old school" killing attackn if it dod BOD on a 1. Of course, it then needs the extra knockback die to even things out a bit.

 

Do what? They kill people without resistant defenses. That's what killing attacks do. Against targets with resistant defenses' date=' killing damage and non-killing damage are and should be indistinguishable. That's what resistant defenses are [i']for[/i].

 

This comes down to what you want from a KA. Should it be more effective at killing those without resistant defenses, or be more efective at inflicting BOD overall? My "optional rule" is aimed at those who want a killing attack that's more efective at killing at all levels of defense.

 

All those Iron Age comics which constantly have heroes and villains bloodied and battered, if not crippled or dead, would probably be better simulated by the -3 SM/10 points per d6 default. For me, I like my games less lethal.

 

Since the needless complexity is explicitly one of the problems which needs to be solved with regard to the current (xd6 * (1d6 - y)) killing damage mechanic' date=' yours is not an acceptable solution.[/quote']

 

I'm in the school that says "multiplication isn't all that complex", but that comes down to a matter of taste.

 

We could take your approach one step further, for example, and eliminate KA's entirely. We could go the DC Heroes approach that all damage is "normal" unless the character decides to enter "killing combat". Then, BOD is blocked only by resistant defenses. That would eliminate the complexity (whether it's needless or not being a matter of opinion) of having two different types of attack at all - KA's could be removed entirely.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

The variance is 1 BOD average per 30 AP. That's 16.67% (7/6).

 

I used the wrong term. (Please forgive me, I'm just a layman. )

 

What I meant was that the way Killing Attacks are rolled now results in merely 8% more Body than the way Energy Blasts are rolled, and that this is as close to identical as those two numbers can come using an intenger Damage Class and number of dice. For all intents and purposes, they roll (and appear to be intended to roll) effectively the same amount of Body.

 

although not if partial dice are purchased.

 

Partial dice are a kludge, and should be ignored for the purposes of this analysis. However, the fact that such a kludge is even needed should be a flashing neon CLUE that there is something grievoiusly wrong with the (xd6 * (1d6 - y)) mechanic.

 

This comes down to what you want from a KA.

 

What I want is what Killing Attacks do now, without the grievous flaws: kill people without resistant defenses, and do the exact same damage as a normal attack to people with resistant defenses.

 

My "optional rule" is aimed at those who want a killing attack that's more efective at killing at all levels of defense.

 

That violates the one core rule of Hero System: every attack has a defense. For "killing", the defense is for the defense to be "resistant". At which point the attack becomes Body and Stun inflicted, and the defense becomes DEF.

 

Q.E.D. I'm done.

[Rapier]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

I just hate the stun multipler period. I like how Hugh called it the "Stun Lottery". That's really what it is.

 

Everyone always complains about the STUNx. Do you know what the STUNx is? Look at the hit location chart. The STUNx is nothing more than a shortcut to reflect hit location. Hit in the head? LOTS of stun. Hit in the elbow? Not so much stun. The STUNx makes perfect sense.

 

BUT if you are still unhappy with it. Use the Standard Effect Rule of x2.5.

[zornwil]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Oh' date=' I agree. I'll have to wait a while before I'll be able to give Hugh any rep on it (too much in the last 24 hours, alas), but it's on my list of things to do.[/quote']

Yeah, between 24 hours and the rotation required, it's a bummer sometimes!

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

What I meant was that the way Killing Attacks are rolled now results in merely 8% more Body than the way Energy Blasts are rolled' date=' and that this is as close to identical as those two numbers can come using an intenger Damage Class and number of dice. For all intents and purposes, they roll (and appear to be intended to roll) effectively the same amount of Body.[/quote']

 

I agree with you that the difference is pretty nominal. But I'm stuck on where your % is coming from. A 1d6 KA averages 3.5 bod to 3 from an EB (16.7% more as .5/3; 14.3% more as .5/3.5), so your 10% or 8% escapes me. In any case, while that may be statistically significant, in practice it is insignificant.

 

Partial dice are a kludge' date=' and should be ignored for the purposes of this analysis. However, the fact that such a kludge is even needed should be a flashing neon [b']CLUE[/b] that there is something grievoiusly wrong with the (xd6 * (1d6 - y)) mechanic.

 

Actually, it's an indication that we want finer breakpoints than 15 points. It has nothing to do with the KA mechanic. Transfers and Transforms are also 15 point powers, and there's a horde of 10 point powers for which 1/2 dice are reasonably common. Even 5 point powers can have half dice. I suppose 1 point of a 3 point power should be +1, 2 points +1/2d6 and 3 points the full die.

 

Hey, I even use +1's on advantaged EB's, etc., but that's a house rule.

 

hmmm...I think I had a point to make here... Oh yeah! the half die doesn't, to me, indicate a flaw that links to the KA mechanic.

 

What I want is what Killing Attacks do now' date=' without the grievous flaws: kill people [i']without[/i] resistant defenses, and do the exact same damage as a normal attack to people with resistant defenses.

 

Elimination of KA's as a concept wuld do that. How many PC's in a campaign with KA's have no rDef anyway? And a big normal attack kills normals just as dead (they only have 2 PD/ED anyway). For what you want, however, I don't see the harm in your approach. I just don't see a big benefit either. I'm also a bit uncomfortable with the way your approach basically gives the ability to avoid normal defenses away for free, but again - how many real opponents lack rDef anyway.

 

That violates the one core rule of Hero System: every attack has a defense. For "killing"' date=' the defense is for the defense to be "resistant". At which point the attack becomes Body and Stun inflicted, and the defense becomes DEF.[/quote']

 

Not sure I get this one. You still have resistant defenses, and they still block BOD from killing attacks. With 10 points per 1d6 BOD, you need more rDEF to be proof against KA's, but the drop in cost of flash increased the DEF needed for security too. Still, I don't like the idea of raising player death rates lkike the 10 AP route would do, and it messes with objects, entanglkes, etc. too much for my liking. But if I had a problem with KA's, that would be my more likely fix (or maybe the whole DC Heroes route - at least "something for nothing" goes to everyone then).

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Everyone always complains about the STUNx. Do you know what the STUNx is? Look at the hit location chart. The STUNx is nothing more than a shortcut to reflect hit location. Hit in the head? LOTS of stun. Hit in the elbow? Not so much stun. The STUNx makes perfect sense.

 

BUT if you are still unhappy with it. Use the Standard Effect Rule of x2.5.

 

Well, yes and no. The Stunx is a quick replacement for hit location, but it's generally used when hit locations aren't there for other attacks, so a bullet in the head does massive stun, but a punch is a punch, whether in the head or the hand.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

I'm also a bit uncomfortable with the way your approach basically gives the ability to avoid normal defenses away for free

 

Can you explain what you mean by this? The Consistent Killing Damage rule doesn't change the cost of anything. It only corrects the game mechanic used to produce the effect, and only modifies the effect to the extent of correcting the flaws introduced by the aforementioned underlying mechanic.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Can you explain what you mean by this? The Consistent Killing Damage rule doesn't change the cost of anything. It only corrects the game mechanic used to produce the effect' date=' and only modifies the effect to the extent of correcting the flaws introduced by the aforementioned underlying mechanic.[/quote']

 

OK - under your proposal (if I read it correctly), I choose either a "Normal Attack" or a "killing attack". They do exactly the same Stun, BOD and Knockback, rolled in exactly the same way.

 

But one is blocked by non-resistant defenses and the other is not. Circumvention of non-resistant defenses (for BOD - all or nothing for STUN) is therefore free. Something for nothing. As to how valuable that "something" is, that's another matter.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

OK - under your proposal (if I read it correctly)' date=' I choose either a "Normal Attack" or a "killing attack". They do exactly the same Stun, BOD and Knockback, rolled in exactly the same way.[/quote']

 

Under the Consistent Killing Damage rule, killing still does 1d6 less knockback. Other than that, killing and normal do the same damage for the same cost, just like they do now, but without the ridiculous (xd6 * (1d6 - y)) game mechanic currently attached to killing damage.

 

But one is blocked by non-resistant defenses and the other is not. Circumvention of non-resistant defenses (for BOD - all or nothing for STUN) is therefore free.

 

Well, yes: that's how the game works. I am not suggesting changing anything about the game system's dynamics or how combat works. I'm not opposed to considering that, but it isn't neccesary to fix this particular problem.

 

And for what it's worth, the only really strenuous objections I have heard to correcting the current flaws in killing damage are from the munchkin set, who complain that their damage-per-point will go down a small percentage if they have to roll using a reasonable mechanic. So it's not like I'm suggesting that anyone get something they aren't already paying points for.

[Agent X]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Under the Consistent Killing Damage rule, killing still does 1d6 less knockback. Other than that, killing and normal do the same damage for the same cost, just like they do now, but without the ridiculous (xd6 * (1d6 - y)) game mechanic currently attached to killing damage.

 

 

 

Uh... yes, that's how the game works. I am not suggesting changing anything about the game system'sdynamics or how combat works. I'm not opposed to considering that, but it isn't neccesary to fix this particular problem.

 

And for what it's worth, the only really strenuous objections I have heard to correcting the current flaws in killing damage are from the munchkin set, who complain that their damage-per-point will go down 8% if they have to roll using a reasonable mechanic. So it's not like I'm suggesting that anyone get something they aren't already paying points for.

Okay now, we all know you feel contempt for your fellow man (and woman I'm sure) if they don't play the game the way you do, but could you tone it down a bit?

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

I agree with you that the difference is pretty nominal. But I'm stuck on where your [8%] is coming from.

 

Hmm... I'm not sure either. I probably did the math in my head when I was drunk and never went back to check the figures. Sorry about that.

[ghost-angel]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

you know .. you keep going on how much a pain in butt the xd6 * (d6-y) method is. Which is just for the STUNx. it's pretty basic math, like fifth grade level.... I don't really think it's all that hard or clunky.

 

I suggested a few alternatives to eliminating the KA and turning into a Lethal EB in regards to dealing with the STUNx (like turning it into a flat 3..) Which I assumed was your main beef since you kept bringing up that equation to figure out STUN for a KA. Apparently it's not. And I got insulted and told I wasn't making sense. Which tells me you either ignoring me or can't understand English.

 

But I'm not sure I honestly see the advantage in buying one Attack Power and declaring it either Killing or Normal. I'd assume that rDEF still blocks Normal Attacks as it does now...

 

I have realized that I've done Hugh's alternative on a few characters without realizing what I was doing - buying the -2 STUN Mutliple Limitaton to get a 10pt Die for the KA just to get another die or 2 in of the KA.

 

the "Fraction Die" for a KA isn't a kludge .. it's the inbetween stages of the Damage Classes - assuming that 1 Killing Die = 3 Damage Classes (or 3 Normal Die) you should logically put something into place for the middle steps, like the +1 and +1/2D6 mechanic.

 

If I did anything to change the KA I'd simply reduce it to a flat 10pts and make it 2DCs instead of three. It'll gain some lethality and remove a middle step in the Damage Class progression. But I doubt that'd fix your perceived problems with the KA. (30AP goes from 2D6 to 3D6 and avg Body goes from 7 to 10)

 

You haven't once actually addressed why my suggested methods won't work other than to tell me you've "debunked" KAs, and that I obviously can't see the glaring flaws in the current system (though I'm still not sure what you believe those flaws to be, I obviously don't think them flaws...)

 

But you know, it doesn't really matter. You have "debunked" the KA, proved yourself correct in every way and are obviously superior in your thinking skills ... Why you aren't in charge of the planet at large is beyond me since your so sure of your superiority.

 

Basically - whatever. Do the world a favor and stop thinking, you're no good at it.

 

[yes, I realize I'm being a lousy jerk with that last bit, but honestly I'm tired of being told I'm babbling with some very simple suggestions instead of actually having been told why those suggestions won't work]

[BNakagawa]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Math Geek Alert!

 

1d6 RKA does 4.50 stun through 6 defenses on average, and has a 25.0% chance of Stunning the target.

 

3d6 EB does 4.57 stun through 6 defenses on average, and has a 9.26% chance of Stunning the target.

 

And the chance of doing no damage with the 1d6 RKA vs 6 defenses is actually 52.8%.

 

Um, no, the stats I quoted are for a *flat 3 stun multiple*.

 

Your math-fu is mighty. Your reading comprehension...not so much.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

The revised KA that costs 10 pts /d6 seems OK, until you realize that it becomes even more susceptible to advantage stacking.

 

1d6 KA with AP, AE1hex and +16 stun multiple for 60 AP?

 

or just AP, penetrating, AE, massive amounts of autofire and personal immunity?

 

ick.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

The revised KA that costs 10 pts /d6 seems OK, until you realize that it becomes even more susceptible to advantage stacking.

 

1d6 KA with AP, AE1hex and +16 stun multiple for 60 AP?

 

or just AP, penetrating, AE, massive amounts of autofire and personal immunity?

 

First off, if the goal is to make KA's lethal, not STUN machines, I'd cap or remove entirely the ability to add Stun multiples, especially if I went to the 50% chance of 1 or 2 Stunx. You want an attack that does STUN, buy an EB. We've gone through the huge Stunx add issue on a thread a while back, and IIRC, FREd indicates more than +2 is a "GM Permission Required" ability, which is as close as you can get to being illegal without flatly making it so, at least in my books.

 

In any case, one can technically get the same result now by taking a 1d6 KA with AP, AE1 hex and +16 stun multiple and -2 SM: 60 points for the same power.

 

If I use AP (+1/2), penetrating (+1/2), AE (say +1 1/2), massive amounts of autofire (say +1 1/4 worth), zero END (+1) and personal immunity (+1/4), I can get 10 base points for 60 AP, so 1/2 d6 or 1d6. The problem here is advantage stacking, not any changes made to the underlying KA. [bTW, autofire AE is overrated in my books - note the FAQ ruling which states that autofire attaxks that miss have no effect whatsoever, since the autofire "miss" overrides the AE "fall in another hex").

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Um' date=' no, the stats I quoted are for a *flat 3 stun multiple*.[/quote']

 

If you want to use the Standard Effect Rule, it would be a flat 2 Stun multiplier, not 3 (barring any Stun multiplier Advantages or Limitations).

 

(xd6 * (1d6 - 1)) = (xd6 * (3 - 1)) = (xd6 * 2)

 

Of course, the munchkins would hate that idea, too.

[Agent X]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

If you want to use the Standard Effect Rule' date=' it would be a flat [b']2[/b] Stun multiplier, not 3 (barring any Stun multiplier Advantages or Limitations).

 

(xd6 * (1d6 - 1)) = (xd6 * (3 - 1)) = (xd6 * 2)

 

Of course, the munchkins would hate that idea, too.

Aren't you a little old to believe that munchkins are real?

[zornwil]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Aren't you a little old to believe that munchkins are real?

He should be, but BEWARE THE LOLLIPOP KIDS!

[zornwil]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

If you want to use the Standard Effect Rule' date=' it would be a flat [b']2[/b] Stun multiplier, not 3 (barring any Stun multiplier Advantages or Limitations).

 

(xd6 * (1d6 - 1)) = (xd6 * (3 - 1)) = (xd6 * 2)

 

Of course, the munchkins would hate that idea, too.

Which flat stun multiple are we talking, HERO or your's or...? I'm sure in HERO the recommended "flat" STUN multiple for a Killing Attack (without hit locations of course) is 3x. I may have lost the thread of this conversation, though... - ?

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Which flat stun multiple are we talking' date=' HERO or your's or...?[/quote']

 

Do you know of more than one Standard Effect Rule? I don't. It could be I have overlooked something, though. The one to which I refer is in Hero 5, Chapter One: Character Creation, Powers, Using Powers, The Standard Effect Rule. It suggests replacing 1d6 with a 3, which would make (1d6 -1) = 2, for a flat *2 Stun Multiplier.

 

Ah, I just found the other rule that you are probably thinking of: Hero 5, Chapter Two: Combat And Adventuring, Determining Damage, Killing Damage Attacks, Stun Multiplier Variants. It suggests using a flat *3 Stun Multiplier rather than the (1d6 - 1) multiplier. I think the Standard Effect Rule is more fair. This gives the character a +1/4 Advantage (Increased Stun Multiplier) for free.

 

Both are both are too clunky, in my opinion. It's much easier to simply make the game mechanic for killing damage consistent with the rest of the game, and toss the silly this-times-that-minus-this-or-that. Faster, fairer, simpler, and more effective.

[zornwil]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

Do you know of more than one Standard Effect Rule? I don't. It could be I have overlooked something, though. The one to which I refer is in Hero 5, Chapter One: Character Creation, Powers, Using Powers, The Standard Effect Rule. It suggests replacing 1d6 with a 3, which would make (1d6 -1) = 2, for a flat *2 Stun Multiplier.

 

Ah, I just found the other rule that you are probably thinking of: Hero 5, Chapter Two: Combat And Adventuring, Determining Damage, Killing Damage Attacks, Stun Multiplier Variants. It suggests using a flat *3 Stun Multiplier rather than the (1d6 - 1) multiplier. I think the Standard Effect Rule is more fair. This gives the character a +1/4 Advantage (Increased Stun Multiplier) for free.

 

Both are both are too clunky. It's much easier to simply make the game mechanic for killing damage consistent with the rest of the game, and toss the silly this-times-that-minus-this-or-that. Faster, fairer, simpler, and more effective.

Yes, "Hero 5, Chapter Two: Combat And Adventuring, Determining Damage, Killing Damage Attacks, Stun Multiplier Variants". sorry I wasn't clear.

 

I don't see how 3x the BOD damage is clunky, though I see where you're going and it's an idea not unworthy of consideration.

 

It's just wrong. (that's a joke)

 

Seriously, it's not for me and I don't agree fundamentally that the "STUN lottery" is bad, I think, as Mark indicated earlier, that it well simulates heroic fiction as HERO intends to do. Obviously, we won't agree on that.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

First off, if the goal is to make KA's lethal, not STUN machines, I'd cap or remove entirely the ability to add Stun multiples, especially if I went to the 50% chance of 1 or 2 Stunx. You want an attack that does STUN, buy an EB. We've gone through the huge Stunx add issue on a thread a while back, and IIRC, FREd indicates more than +2 is a "GM Permission Required" ability, which is as close as you can get to being illegal without flatly making it so, at least in my books.

 

In any case, one can technically get the same result now by taking a 1d6 KA with AP, AE1 hex and +16 stun multiple and -2 SM: 60 points for the same power.

 

If I use AP (+1/2), penetrating (+1/2), AE (say +1 1/2), massive amounts of autofire (say +1 1/4 worth), zero END (+1) and personal immunity (+1/4), I can get 10 base points for 60 AP, so 1/2 d6 or 1d6. The problem here is advantage stacking, not any changes made to the underlying KA. [bTW, autofire AE is overrated in my books - note the FAQ ruling which states that autofire attaxks that miss have no effect whatsoever, since the autofire "miss" overrides the AE "fall in another hex").

 

60 points, but 90 active points. Not the same thing. One fill fit in my 60 point VPP, one will not.

 

The problem is that the lower the base points per die, the more abusive advantage stacking becomes. That's the key issue behind the furor over the 3 point HA.

 

Also, with a 10/die KA, there is no point in ever buying force wall ever again. If you're capped at 60 ap (multipower, VPP etc) then you'll always get blown through by someone else's multipower/vpp.

 

And everyone's foci must be unbreakable or be KA bait. (or rather, even more than they currently are)

[BNakagawa]

Re: Eliminating Killing Attacks

 

If you want to use the Standard Effect Rule' date=' it would be a flat [b']2[/b] Stun multiplier, not 3 (barring any Stun multiplier Advantages or Limitations).

 

(xd6 * (1d6 - 1)) = (xd6 * (3 - 1)) = (xd6 * 2)

 

Of course, the munchkins would hate that idea, too.

 

p270 fred